For a small blog, I reckon we have the most energetic "commentators" I've come across (the comments word count usually exceeds the post itself!) and I'm seeking the collective wisdom once again, on the vein of the psychic powers thread. So what's this post about?
Frostgrave - the inspiration
When reading through Frostgrave, I kinda raised my eyebrows at some of the schools of magic chosen. Some seemed like must-have inclusions, but others seemed a bit contrived.
Elementalist, Enchanter, Illusionist, Necromancer, Summoner, Priest(Thaumage) - these are all fantasy staples. ...but is a Chronomancer even a thing? A Sigilist - guy who writes scrolls. Hmmm - really? Soothsayer? Maaaybe. A Witch is not really a class of magic per se, but describes the practitioner, doesn't it?
D&D - the benchmark?
So I googled what D&D - surely an influential fantasy benchmark - did. They seem to divide it into "arcane" and "divine."
Arcane schools include - Abjuration (protective magic), Transmutation, Summoning, Divination (okay, same as Soothsayer?), Enchantment, Evocation (energy, incl ice, fire etc - similar to Elementalist?), Illusion, Necromancy, and "universal" spells.
Divine magic is mostly cleric magic (nature magic is kinda included - would this include witches?). Divine magic seems to have been divided into different categories according to the editions (alignment/deity), but I get the vibe it tends to be more focussed on buff/debuff (curse/bless) and stuff like healing, or smiting undead.
Hmm. Fairly similar to Frostgrave I guess, sans the Sigilist and Chronomancer, with a couple added.
Questions
So is D&D the definitive list?
I don't want some random magic system you saw in a homebrew RPG once - I want to narrow down the core magic "styles" which are the most common tropes. e.g the "Lore of Waaagh" is WFB-specific, so it's no good. However it might fit under the umbrella of a generic class of magic - perhaps "battle magic." Should "battle magic" be a class?
Basically, I want a "generic" list of typical magic types - the most universally recognized ones. The categories or "big ideas" - overarching forms of magic, not small sub-groups. I.e. geomancy could be classed under elemental magic.
If you had to divide magic into "types" - and include the most common, recognizable ones from mainstream media (movies, books, games) - how would you categorize it?
Monday, 3 August 2015
Sunday, 2 August 2015
Clash on the Fringe - Sci Fi Skirmish (Review)
No, this is not the name of a boy band, a race horse, or a trendy hairdresser. This set of rules is clearly a love-letter to the Rogue Trader era of 40K - aimed at 2-3 squads per player, a few heroes and the odd vehicle thrown in. It aims away from the "hard sci fi" which has flooded the rules market of late, and aims to swash a few buckles, in more a space fantasy vein.
The Shiny
It's pretty plain, with the odd photo of minis thrown in. (I must say, 6mm scale is not the best to illustrate a book with - they don't get you very excited, and at first I presumed they were chunky/dodgy 15mm) I'd call it "serviceable". It has a table of contents, and I didn't find it hard to locate rules, though the location of some sections was a bit clunky. At $15, it's at the mid-high end for pdf rules, but there is plenty of content (157 pages - of which about 30 are the rules themselves). To sum it up: Substance over style.
Stats
There's enough to be descriptive.
Speed
Survival (armour, toughness, fieldcraft)
Training (shooting, melee, initiative)
Morale (bravery, enthusiasm, ability to take losses)
Discipline (endurance, willingness to endure/react to fire)
You test against them by rolling d10 = or less than a TN. I.e if you have 6 morale, you need to roll 6 or less to pass. Gives a familiar "old school" feel.
Activation
I didn't find it terribly clear. It says "both sides roll d10+Training of any unactivated unit" then the winner can choose to move any unactivated unit (not necessarily the one whose Training was used?). I presumed this continues through the turn (i.e. rolling after each time someone activates a unit) in a kind of random-alternate-movement-influenced-by-training, rather than one-side-does-all-its-actions-while-the-other-side-reacts. A player with unactivated units left over rolls d10, and a 1-2 means the unit can't activate. This is an interesting way to (mildly) disadvantage warbands with superior numbers, especially if they are saving their "best til last." (It also discourages you making a bazillion small units in order to "game" the turn sequence).
Units, once activated, can choose from a series of actions.
Engage (normal), Storm (assault), Evade (avoid reaction fire, move fast), Prowl (avoid reaction fire, can fire short range), Alert (overwatch), Regroup (recover suppression). Which coincide with the number on a d6, so you could use a microdice to mark the order if necessary. Within these parameters units do the usual fire+move or move+fire.
Movement
Rather than halving movement, it deducts various -1" and -2" penalties. Individual minis get a +1" to speed. There are no forced coherency, but you can't benefit from leadership bonuses if you ain't within 8". There is a rough game scale of 1" = ~3 metres.
I like the lack of forced coherency. Minis aren't tied to each other by invisible 2" bungee cords and can scatter about and take cover as they want. Leaders (more on them later) do encourage a modicum of natural coherency though.
A little weirdly, the rules fully explaining obstacles, terrain and cover (as well as climbing, entering buildings, etc) are found a good 40 pages later, after generic sample races. I found this a bit illogical and annoying, layout-wise.
Shooting
Minis within a squad can use different weapons (i.e. one guy shoot bazooka, one throws a frag, the other fires a SMG). Weapon ranges are either close (+2), standard or long(-2). They also have a penetration value. Interestingly, many automatic weapons may choose to use AoE templates. See this post for why this is good.
The firer must roll under their Training score to hit. Natural 10s never hit, but do suppress. Unaimed fire only hits on 1s (hits) and 10s (heads down/suppress). A mini that is hit must roll a saving throw of d10 (+ weapon pen) vs its survival. If the roll is higher, it dies. If it is equal or lower, it is suppressed. Minis in the blast template of an explosive weapon (grenade launcher etc) are suppressed automatically. I must say I like grenades you can actually throw and place a template for, instead of the +1 to assault dice nonsense every ruleset uses nowadays.
Reaction Fire
This has been deliberately toned down compared to the usual hard sci fi/Vietnam-in-space rules that dominate 15mm sci fi. Basically, units have a "zone of control" equal to their Discipline x 2. I.e. a Discipline 6 unit would have a 12" ZoC. The reaction fire is unaimed and only hits on a 1.
Given there are lots of actions/moves which don't draw reactions, and the relatively short reaction range, and a 90d arc, I feel this perhaps could be "tuned up" a bit (perhaps to half Training i.e. a trooper who normally hits on a 6 or less needs a 3 or less when reacting) without messing with the game balance too much. In the least, I'd up the potency when troops are on overwatch. But you can definitely see the aim to move away from "hard" sci fi to space fantasy, which is a welcome change of pace. A chainsword-wielding charge is actually practicable.
Melee
Reminiscent of early 40K, it's D10+stat (Training). Losers roll a survival save (or both, if they draw) and get pushed back 3" and are suppressed. Once in melee, someone's going to get hurt.
Suppression (aka "Heads Down"*)
(*I'm going to do a post soon on why it annoys me when people rename common wargaming terms to their own nomenclature. It's like going to a pie shop where each shop has their own unique systems for the symbol on the crust of its pie, making you inevitably have to ask what pies they have in stock...)
The mini, if it suffers a suppression marker (it can have up to a maximum of 3) is pinned (no reaction fire) and must roll a d10 under their Discipline to remove the markers. All markers can be rolled for in the same phase - you could potentially remove all 3 at once if you had good Discipline/luck.
Stress
Each casualty caused adds a Stress counter to the unit. I think we're getting a bit counter-heavy at this point, but I guess it's no worse than Tomorrow's War. Each stress counter gives a -1 penalty to Discipline, Training and Morale. If these stats get reduced to 0, various bad thing happen. 0 Morale, for example, means the unit is disbanded and removed from play.
Leaders
These rank from 1 (basic) to 3 (natural leader) - the number shows the amount of command they can give. This includes ordering another mini to move or shoot (potentially, I presume, allowing them to move/shoot twice?), and removing stress/suppression effects. Leaders give these orders when they are activated, but before they move/shoot. I really like the concept of this. It reminds me of the "heroic actions" from LOTR:SBG. It also gives you a reason to clump up (to receive orders) at risk of the AoE weapons which proliferate. Risk vs Reward.
Heroes & Monsters
These get extra dice rolls and stat boosts. They don't "die" but instead roll on a table which is likelier to result in them getting stressed or wounded than killed outright. This makes them more "characterful" and tougher than your average bear. Monsters have similar rules and tend to be easier to target but difficult to suppress.
Psionics
Yay, psykers! Whilst not being a deep system, it's got a bit more texture than the "just another shooting attack" abilities from Gruntz & TW. They come in 3 levels of power, and can push, shield, boost speed, shooting and melee, as well as buff/debuff morale. Some psykers can wield more than one power at a time, and have traits that extend their range or allow extra effects.
Vehicles
These, thankfully, use the same mechanics as infantry so my mecha will actually see service on the tabletop for once. They share similar stats - Speed, Survival - as well as a few new ones: Targeting (to hit rolls), Sensors (reactions) and Safety (how likely the crew are to survive the vehicle being "brewed up.") They come in the usual walker-tracked-floater-grav-wheeled varieties. Due to their rather obvious nature, troops can react to them when they are farther away than usual and tend to have the upper hand in reactions. Suppressive fire will slow vehicles and degrade the accuracy of their fire, and vehicles tend to ignore low-penetration weapons. Like heroes, vehicles roll on a special table when they fail their Survival rolls. Vehicles may try to "overrun" foot troops - a term I haven't heard in a while! As usual, plenty of sample vehicle types are provided. There are mech suits (heavy power armour) which use a mix of vehicle and infantry rules.
There are rules for off table fire support and alternate (airborne/flank/infiltration) deployment as well as reinforcements. There are also simple "task resolution" rules - for the RPG-ey aspects of games where you might need to overload a power core, sabotage a vehicle or hack a terminal.
Army Building
There is a point system which is good as many indie games leave them out for philosophical reasons. As CoTF points out, we're big boys and can decide whether we want to use points-based or scenarios. The army building restrictions are basically no more heroes/individual than you have squads (I suspect the author lived through the "Herohammer" years)
There are sample troop ratings (discipline, morale, training) from gangers to corporate assassins, and speed/survival tends to be more a function of armour or biology. Plenty of examples are given for both. There are ~20 generic traits which is about the sweet spot, without going overboard. There's a thorough range (~50!) of all the usual scifi weapon tropes and you could certainly use them in a grimdark milennium or a galaxy far far away. Crew weapons and grenades (antivehicle and otherwise) represent well also. You can even build custom weapons using 15 weapon traits.
There's about 10 bits of gear ranging from sniper scopes, jump packs, stim packs to teleporters.
There's a big section (32 pages!) of sample races for the genric sci-fi background. I admit I didn't spend much time on this as I tend to ignore fluff unless it is tied to a miniatures line or has a particularly unique concept. I think they were positioned in an awkward spot - they would be better off as an appendix at the end of the book, rather than dividing up the middle of the rules. In short - rather useful as a guide, but poorly placed smack-bang in the middle of the rules.
Build Your Own
After the usual "points systems can never be perfectly balanced but here you go anyway" disclaimer, you get a pretty thorough points system. Basically you need one squad for every special unit (vehicle, hero, psyker, leader) and two per vehicle e.g. 2 squads would allow you 2 psykers, 2 heroes, 2 leaders and a single vehicle. As usual, there are a zillion generic examples of troops and weapons, as well as an explanation of the formula used. If you can't stat out all your minis with all the help given, it's you, not your tools. This very thorough section has now nudged it ahead of Gruntz in my "recommended sci fi games" list.
Terrain, World-Building
There's expanded terrain rules (buildings, climbing, gravity, visibility, ice, hostile flora) - many of which I felt belonged in a relevant section in the core rules themselves.
There's rules for wandering NPC critters (of varying size and ferocity) that activate randomly and can attack any troops within their Speed range. There's nothing like keeping a game from getting to serious than having a wandering cyborg cat squid cruise past and eat your most powerful psyker.
Scenarios, Plots, Campaigns & Solo Play
There are lots of random generators from what table edge you have, to exactly how to deploy, to random objectives (i.e. capture a objective, posses an object, assassinate a valuable enemy unit, etc) as well as a hard turn limit to keep the game mission-focussed.
There's a very RPG-y d100 "plot generator" for even randomising combatants, another d100 for objectives, and another d100 for the locale, as well as a plot "twist." Basically, the author is an ex-RPGer and it shows!
There's a solo play section but as troops are not "reaction driven" like 2HW, it's more a guideline than a set of NPC-controlling mechanics, and again has a very "RPG" vibe to it. A useful inclusion, but I wouldn't base my purchase on the solo-play attributes of the game.
I like the inclusion of a campaign section. It's no Necromunda, but you can increase traits and attributes, and upgrade troops to psykers, heroes or leaders. Weapons can be upgraded as well. You can reward Buzz the Orc who slew six alien cultists single handed with a stat/trait boost, and get a narrative feel to a series of games.
TL:DR
Phew. That was a huge review, but there's a lot in these rules. Although the 30 pages of core rules are simple-to-middling difficulty and use mostly familiar mechanics, there is a truckload (120+ pages) of supplementary material. Clash on the Fringe is quite comprehensive.
It can actually play fantasy sci fi (unlike 99% of the indie rulebooks which are repurposed modern rules)
It definitely pays homage to the Rogue Trader-40K 2nd ed era
It has a (very) thorough points system to allow you to stat out your own models. (+examples)
It has a campaign system.
It uses familiar mechanics, only modernized with d10s, reactions and suppression/stress
It has AoE automatic weapons (a new pet favourite of mine) and grenades that aren't just a +1 modifier
The rules were a bit awkwardly laid out - a huge section on sample races divided up the book in an unintuitive way. Whilst I didn't have trouble finding things, it had a bit of a awkward-jumbled-RPG-supplement feel at times. It was (perhaps to be expected) a bit bare bones with regard to layout and shiny pictures, and 6/15mm doesn't have much wow factor. At $15 it may be out of the "impulse buy" range of some folk, though you do get a lot of game for that. Also, there's quite a few tokens littering the table (suppression, stress etc) during play.
However, my overall impression was very positive. It's familiar, and improves on many old-school 40K tropes while leaving them still recognizable. It's bumped "Gruntz" out of my top spot for "build your own" sci fi rules as it does that and it allows you to play sci fi the old school fantasy way. You can suppress your foes - but you can also blast them with "Sif Lightning" and bisect them with chainswords - or force them back into reach of a carnivorous plant.
Recommended? Yes. A very versatile, thorough set of rules (a "gaming toolkit" actually) that harks back to the old Rogue Trader era of science fantasy. I'm actually interested in playing my 15mm sci fi again after overdosing on hard sci fi, and looking forward to "statting up" some new armies.
Disclaimer #1: these rules were only playtested at the "mechanics" level with a few simple games, as the 160-page rulebook took me half the day to read and absorb, and teething toddlers left me with minimal playing time. But a few people have asked about this so I thought I'd release it before next weekend...
Disclaimer #2: I often forget to note if something is a review copy. This one was.
The Shiny
It's pretty plain, with the odd photo of minis thrown in. (I must say, 6mm scale is not the best to illustrate a book with - they don't get you very excited, and at first I presumed they were chunky/dodgy 15mm) I'd call it "serviceable". It has a table of contents, and I didn't find it hard to locate rules, though the location of some sections was a bit clunky. At $15, it's at the mid-high end for pdf rules, but there is plenty of content (157 pages - of which about 30 are the rules themselves). To sum it up: Substance over style.
Do you get nostalgic about old-school 40K? Back when the whacky inventiveness and weird alien worlds hadn't become a narrow grimdark place, constrained by official canon?
Stats
There's enough to be descriptive.
Speed
Survival (armour, toughness, fieldcraft)
Training (shooting, melee, initiative)
Morale (bravery, enthusiasm, ability to take losses)
Discipline (endurance, willingness to endure/react to fire)
You test against them by rolling d10 = or less than a TN. I.e if you have 6 morale, you need to roll 6 or less to pass. Gives a familiar "old school" feel.
Activation
I didn't find it terribly clear. It says "both sides roll d10+Training of any unactivated unit" then the winner can choose to move any unactivated unit (not necessarily the one whose Training was used?). I presumed this continues through the turn (i.e. rolling after each time someone activates a unit) in a kind of random-alternate-movement-influenced-by-training, rather than one-side-does-all-its-actions-while-the-other-side-reacts. A player with unactivated units left over rolls d10, and a 1-2 means the unit can't activate. This is an interesting way to (mildly) disadvantage warbands with superior numbers, especially if they are saving their "best til last." (It also discourages you making a bazillion small units in order to "game" the turn sequence).
Units, once activated, can choose from a series of actions.
Engage (normal), Storm (assault), Evade (avoid reaction fire, move fast), Prowl (avoid reaction fire, can fire short range), Alert (overwatch), Regroup (recover suppression). Which coincide with the number on a d6, so you could use a microdice to mark the order if necessary. Within these parameters units do the usual fire+move or move+fire.
Movement
Rather than halving movement, it deducts various -1" and -2" penalties. Individual minis get a +1" to speed. There are no forced coherency, but you can't benefit from leadership bonuses if you ain't within 8". There is a rough game scale of 1" = ~3 metres.
I like the lack of forced coherency. Minis aren't tied to each other by invisible 2" bungee cords and can scatter about and take cover as they want. Leaders (more on them later) do encourage a modicum of natural coherency though.
A little weirdly, the rules fully explaining obstacles, terrain and cover (as well as climbing, entering buildings, etc) are found a good 40 pages later, after generic sample races. I found this a bit illogical and annoying, layout-wise.
Shooting
Minis within a squad can use different weapons (i.e. one guy shoot bazooka, one throws a frag, the other fires a SMG). Weapon ranges are either close (+2), standard or long(-2). They also have a penetration value. Interestingly, many automatic weapons may choose to use AoE templates. See this post for why this is good.
The firer must roll under their Training score to hit. Natural 10s never hit, but do suppress. Unaimed fire only hits on 1s (hits) and 10s (heads down/suppress). A mini that is hit must roll a saving throw of d10 (+ weapon pen) vs its survival. If the roll is higher, it dies. If it is equal or lower, it is suppressed. Minis in the blast template of an explosive weapon (grenade launcher etc) are suppressed automatically. I must say I like grenades you can actually throw and place a template for, instead of the +1 to assault dice nonsense every ruleset uses nowadays.
Reaction Fire
This has been deliberately toned down compared to the usual hard sci fi/Vietnam-in-space rules that dominate 15mm sci fi. Basically, units have a "zone of control" equal to their Discipline x 2. I.e. a Discipline 6 unit would have a 12" ZoC. The reaction fire is unaimed and only hits on a 1.
Given there are lots of actions/moves which don't draw reactions, and the relatively short reaction range, and a 90d arc, I feel this perhaps could be "tuned up" a bit (perhaps to half Training i.e. a trooper who normally hits on a 6 or less needs a 3 or less when reacting) without messing with the game balance too much. In the least, I'd up the potency when troops are on overwatch. But you can definitely see the aim to move away from "hard" sci fi to space fantasy, which is a welcome change of pace. A chainsword-wielding charge is actually practicable.
Melee
Reminiscent of early 40K, it's D10+stat (Training). Losers roll a survival save (or both, if they draw) and get pushed back 3" and are suppressed. Once in melee, someone's going to get hurt.
Suppression (aka "Heads Down"*)
(*I'm going to do a post soon on why it annoys me when people rename common wargaming terms to their own nomenclature. It's like going to a pie shop where each shop has their own unique systems for the symbol on the crust of its pie, making you inevitably have to ask what pies they have in stock...)
The mini, if it suffers a suppression marker (it can have up to a maximum of 3) is pinned (no reaction fire) and must roll a d10 under their Discipline to remove the markers. All markers can be rolled for in the same phase - you could potentially remove all 3 at once if you had good Discipline/luck.
Stress
Each casualty caused adds a Stress counter to the unit. I think we're getting a bit counter-heavy at this point, but I guess it's no worse than Tomorrow's War. Each stress counter gives a -1 penalty to Discipline, Training and Morale. If these stats get reduced to 0, various bad thing happen. 0 Morale, for example, means the unit is disbanded and removed from play.
There is the odd nice pic of minis in action, but the layout is generally pretty simple and sparse.
Leaders
These rank from 1 (basic) to 3 (natural leader) - the number shows the amount of command they can give. This includes ordering another mini to move or shoot (potentially, I presume, allowing them to move/shoot twice?), and removing stress/suppression effects. Leaders give these orders when they are activated, but before they move/shoot. I really like the concept of this. It reminds me of the "heroic actions" from LOTR:SBG. It also gives you a reason to clump up (to receive orders) at risk of the AoE weapons which proliferate. Risk vs Reward.
Heroes & Monsters
These get extra dice rolls and stat boosts. They don't "die" but instead roll on a table which is likelier to result in them getting stressed or wounded than killed outright. This makes them more "characterful" and tougher than your average bear. Monsters have similar rules and tend to be easier to target but difficult to suppress.
Psionics
Yay, psykers! Whilst not being a deep system, it's got a bit more texture than the "just another shooting attack" abilities from Gruntz & TW. They come in 3 levels of power, and can push, shield, boost speed, shooting and melee, as well as buff/debuff morale. Some psykers can wield more than one power at a time, and have traits that extend their range or allow extra effects.
Vehicles
These, thankfully, use the same mechanics as infantry so my mecha will actually see service on the tabletop for once. They share similar stats - Speed, Survival - as well as a few new ones: Targeting (to hit rolls), Sensors (reactions) and Safety (how likely the crew are to survive the vehicle being "brewed up.") They come in the usual walker-tracked-floater-grav-wheeled varieties. Due to their rather obvious nature, troops can react to them when they are farther away than usual and tend to have the upper hand in reactions. Suppressive fire will slow vehicles and degrade the accuracy of their fire, and vehicles tend to ignore low-penetration weapons. Like heroes, vehicles roll on a special table when they fail their Survival rolls. Vehicles may try to "overrun" foot troops - a term I haven't heard in a while! As usual, plenty of sample vehicle types are provided. There are mech suits (heavy power armour) which use a mix of vehicle and infantry rules.
There are rules for off table fire support and alternate (airborne/flank/infiltration) deployment as well as reinforcements. There are also simple "task resolution" rules - for the RPG-ey aspects of games where you might need to overload a power core, sabotage a vehicle or hack a terminal.
Army Building
There is a point system which is good as many indie games leave them out for philosophical reasons. As CoTF points out, we're big boys and can decide whether we want to use points-based or scenarios. The army building restrictions are basically no more heroes/individual than you have squads (I suspect the author lived through the "Herohammer" years)
There are sample troop ratings (discipline, morale, training) from gangers to corporate assassins, and speed/survival tends to be more a function of armour or biology. Plenty of examples are given for both. There are ~20 generic traits which is about the sweet spot, without going overboard. There's a thorough range (~50!) of all the usual scifi weapon tropes and you could certainly use them in a grimdark milennium or a galaxy far far away. Crew weapons and grenades (antivehicle and otherwise) represent well also. You can even build custom weapons using 15 weapon traits.
There's about 10 bits of gear ranging from sniper scopes, jump packs, stim packs to teleporters.
There's a big section (32 pages!) of sample races for the genric sci-fi background. I admit I didn't spend much time on this as I tend to ignore fluff unless it is tied to a miniatures line or has a particularly unique concept. I think they were positioned in an awkward spot - they would be better off as an appendix at the end of the book, rather than dividing up the middle of the rules. In short - rather useful as a guide, but poorly placed smack-bang in the middle of the rules.
Build Your Own
After the usual "points systems can never be perfectly balanced but here you go anyway" disclaimer, you get a pretty thorough points system. Basically you need one squad for every special unit (vehicle, hero, psyker, leader) and two per vehicle e.g. 2 squads would allow you 2 psykers, 2 heroes, 2 leaders and a single vehicle. As usual, there are a zillion generic examples of troops and weapons, as well as an explanation of the formula used. If you can't stat out all your minis with all the help given, it's you, not your tools. This very thorough section has now nudged it ahead of Gruntz in my "recommended sci fi games" list.
The random generation charts give Clash a RPG vibe.
Terrain, World-Building
There's expanded terrain rules (buildings, climbing, gravity, visibility, ice, hostile flora) - many of which I felt belonged in a relevant section in the core rules themselves.
There's rules for wandering NPC critters (of varying size and ferocity) that activate randomly and can attack any troops within their Speed range. There's nothing like keeping a game from getting to serious than having a wandering cyborg cat squid cruise past and eat your most powerful psyker.
Scenarios, Plots, Campaigns & Solo Play
There are lots of random generators from what table edge you have, to exactly how to deploy, to random objectives (i.e. capture a objective, posses an object, assassinate a valuable enemy unit, etc) as well as a hard turn limit to keep the game mission-focussed.
There's a very RPG-y d100 "plot generator" for even randomising combatants, another d100 for objectives, and another d100 for the locale, as well as a plot "twist." Basically, the author is an ex-RPGer and it shows!
There's a solo play section but as troops are not "reaction driven" like 2HW, it's more a guideline than a set of NPC-controlling mechanics, and again has a very "RPG" vibe to it. A useful inclusion, but I wouldn't base my purchase on the solo-play attributes of the game.
I like the inclusion of a campaign section. It's no Necromunda, but you can increase traits and attributes, and upgrade troops to psykers, heroes or leaders. Weapons can be upgraded as well. You can reward Buzz the Orc who slew six alien cultists single handed with a stat/trait boost, and get a narrative feel to a series of games.
TL:DR
Phew. That was a huge review, but there's a lot in these rules. Although the 30 pages of core rules are simple-to-middling difficulty and use mostly familiar mechanics, there is a truckload (120+ pages) of supplementary material. Clash on the Fringe is quite comprehensive.
It can actually play fantasy sci fi (unlike 99% of the indie rulebooks which are repurposed modern rules)
It definitely pays homage to the Rogue Trader-40K 2nd ed era
It has a (very) thorough points system to allow you to stat out your own models. (+examples)
It has a campaign system.
It uses familiar mechanics, only modernized with d10s, reactions and suppression/stress
It has AoE automatic weapons (a new pet favourite of mine) and grenades that aren't just a +1 modifier
The rules were a bit awkwardly laid out - a huge section on sample races divided up the book in an unintuitive way. Whilst I didn't have trouble finding things, it had a bit of a awkward-jumbled-RPG-supplement feel at times. It was (perhaps to be expected) a bit bare bones with regard to layout and shiny pictures, and 6/15mm doesn't have much wow factor. At $15 it may be out of the "impulse buy" range of some folk, though you do get a lot of game for that. Also, there's quite a few tokens littering the table (suppression, stress etc) during play.
However, my overall impression was very positive. It's familiar, and improves on many old-school 40K tropes while leaving them still recognizable. It's bumped "Gruntz" out of my top spot for "build your own" sci fi rules as it does that and it allows you to play sci fi the old school fantasy way. You can suppress your foes - but you can also blast them with "Sif Lightning" and bisect them with chainswords - or force them back into reach of a carnivorous plant.
Recommended? Yes. A very versatile, thorough set of rules (a "gaming toolkit" actually) that harks back to the old Rogue Trader era of science fantasy. I'm actually interested in playing my 15mm sci fi again after overdosing on hard sci fi, and looking forward to "statting up" some new armies.
Disclaimer #1: these rules were only playtested at the "mechanics" level with a few simple games, as the 160-page rulebook took me half the day to read and absorb, and teething toddlers left me with minimal playing time. But a few people have asked about this so I thought I'd release it before next weekend...
Disclaimer #2: I often forget to note if something is a review copy. This one was.
Saturday, 1 August 2015
Clix Superheroes for Savage Worlds - with a Guest Star Painter
I hadn't really intended to post up these guys (after all, they hadn't even been rebased properly) but they come with an amusing story...
Let's zoom in closer...
Here's my latest batch, laid out as I waited for the glue on the bases to dry...
BUT WAIT - what's on that orange frisbee in the background?
Let's zoom in closer...
A zebra, a gorilla, and three expertly based clix! My 2-year-old daughter may not have had any PVA, but she has pretty precise sand-sprinkling skills...
This gave me a good chuckle for the morning. She obviously watches more carefully than I give her credit for. It's cute, as I didn't know she was doing it - I just came back and found the clix helpfully laid out on the frisbee, near the others...
Here's the villains. Some were washed with inks by my new "assistant."
..and the heroes. The prepainted clix tend to be "acceptable" i.e. tabletop standard for gaming and some of the sculpts are quite decent. They would make a great project for a talented painter/scratch builder.
Anyway, this post was a bit self-indulgent, but at least I spare you from the "yay, 400,000 hits" or New Years resolution posts..
In other news:
I've dragged out my 15mm sci fi collection at last, as I'm tempted by the promise of Rogue-Traderish space fantasy of Clash on the Fringe (no, it's not a 80s rock band or a trendy sort of haircut)
Expect me to finally do my long-promised Infinity the Game v3.0 review soon (it's sat in draft form for months as I got frustrated by the sheer depth/complexity of the special rules) as I gear up to get some games in at the local club (I have been fairly irregular with regards to actual playing time since child 1, but child 2 has made me crack... ....must... ...escape... ....the house)
Dropzone Commander has been a ruleset I've liked for its combined-arms approach and integrated scenarios (even better - it's always "objective" based rather than deathmatch). The "boutique" price is a bit offputting, but I keep eyeing the starter sets, and the local DzC player base is reasonably healthy. I'm bracing my wallet to make the plunge...
When is a Game "Supported" - and does it matter?
Often when I am on forums, when people ask others about a game, I see people commonly respond with: "this game is great - it's really well supported." "The designer is active on the forums" "He's a great bloke" "They have an active yahoo group" "there's three new army books/supplements/etc out already."
It's like it's the most important reason to buy the game. It tends to make me roll my eyes. I mean, aren't there more important reasons, like, is it a fun game to play?
What do they mean by "supported" anyway?
Is it there are minis for the game?
I mean, if you can't buy minis for it, you could argue it is not supported. For example, I'd like to get a Battlefleet Gothic fleet, but you can't buy the damn models (not without selling a kidney). And the universe and game is designed around very specific models which makes proxying difficult. That's a game that's not supported. Fair enough. However many rules are designed to work with generic minis.
Is it an energetic presence on forums/social media?
But do we really need the lead dev to regularly update his Facebook page? My teens at school are adept with social media but it doesn't mean they can make a good wargame.
Does an active yahoo group really mean the game has good mechanics? (Actually, I'd suggest it often means the opposite - they are often full of confused people who found the rules incomprehensible) I'd suggest it's likelier having a yahoo group shows the game company (a) is a small operation or (b) doesn't have a clue about the internet and fails to realize how uselessly 90s and unintuitive yahoo groups are.
I don't even care if the designer is a jerk or not. E.g. I don't know the Infinity designers from a bar of soap - they could be awesome guys or complete wankers, but it doesn't effect my enjoyment of their game in the slightest.
Is it a regular stream of supplements?
Do we really need 100 supplements and "DLC" (supplementary PDFs, codexes, army books, campaign books) for the game to be good? The videogame community seems to think so. Periodically being milked for money seems to make something "good" to them. And judging by the success of the TAC rules over at the Wargames Vault, there's no shortage of wargamers willing to be nickle-and-dimed. (Yes, you pay $2 for each aircraft profile. Even GW would be proud of that)
If there's a new army book out a month after the core rules were released - it suggests to me it was content which was already prepared, perhaps simply "cut" from the core rules in order to make a supplement. (This practice actually happens, by the way)
Finally: Is the game so bad/boring that everyone will stop playing it unless there is weekly new content?
Can a game die - or even be "killed off" officially?
GW pensioned off Mordhiem years ago. It is definitely not officially "supported." But I come across people all the time who still play it and enjoy it, more than newer, "supported" pretenders. There's fan sites all over the net who don't care that Epic Armageddon is not supported. As long as people play it, a game is not "dead." And in the internet age, its easy for them to connect, share and spread their enthusiasm.
"As long as the game is supported it won't die." Actually, no. What is "dead" anyway. "Official" support is not needed. If the game is good enough, it will be unofficially supported on fansites etc. I mean, if there isn't an attached miniature line, why would we care? We still have the same rules we had before. It's not like anything is taken away from us. And if the rules themselves go OOP, we have the internet to "source" copies from. Just because an official forum goes dark doesn't mean they'll come to our house and repossess our rulebooks.
Can wargames go out of date?
I'd argue wargames, unlike videogames, cannot truly go "out of date." It's not like a 1990s rulebook and minis are suddenly incompatible with your gaming table. Newer minis and rulebooks may be shinier, but not always. And the gap is not even comparable with that of PC games, I mean, compare 1980s "Pong" and the latest "Crysis 3." The difference is vast. Then compare a 90s miniature and a brand new one. Not so much.
Even game mechanics - which do "date" as new trends and certain game design theories become dominant and others fall out of fashion - do not automatically become obsolete or unplayable. Try telling Battletech fans to stop playing because their game is too old.
If you had a game you really loved, and you had a core of local gamers who loved the game to, would the fact no one else likes your game diminish your enjoyment of the game? Would you say "well, no one is playing Great Rail Wars anymore, so guess we gotta stop playing too."
Videogames suffer if they have dated graphics. Sometimes they don't run on your machine (shakes fist at Windows 7/8). I get it's important for a videogame to be supported. Although there is a certain point where a videogame (if it isn't fatally flawed) shouldn't really need to be patched/updated anymore. But I understand videogames get dated. I mean, some of the games I enjoyed back in the 90s make my eyes bleed now. But can a good wargame be truly dated?
Are we confusing "supported" with popular or well publicized?
We want to know other people will be playing our game, so we won't be left with the only Dark Age army and rulebook in our game club. But if you're an early adopter, there's no guarantee your game will be popular locally anyway. For example, locally Attack Wing, Warmachine and Infinity rule the roost. If I rocked up with my shiny new, much-hyped Age of Sigmar stuff I might be a mite disappointed.
But I'd say a nice glossy rulebook, fun rules, cool fluff and a knockout miniature line should be enough to "sell" a game to your mates. Is a constant stream of paid updates and a energetic social media presence really necessary to enjoy the game?
"Hey Marv, do you want to try The Latest New Wargame?
"Hmm. Dunno. They've got awesome rules, and the minis are epic... ...but..."
"But what?"
"They haven't updated their website this month. And there hasn't been a new supplement or army book this year."
"Cripes, the game must be unsupported. Good spot - I almost bought into that. Kevin, Bob and Jim were all about to order it too"
"I'll let 'em know. Hope they haven't ordered it yet!"
"Phew, that was a near miss."
I started this blog so I could review wargames for my friends and have an accessible place to store them. The reason I started doing reviews for them, was often reviews I read were sycophantic, overly gushing, and devoid of detail on the mechanics and how the game actually played. Some were thinly disguised ads. I wanted reviews that explain the mechanics and content so people can make up their own minds. I think the best compliment I get is when someone says "Your review was negative, but I got the game anyway, because you explained the mechanic and why you didn't like it and I decided I would like that aspect of the game." So when I see on forums people repeatedly recommending games simply "because it's well supported" it irritates me. What does it mean? Am I missing something vital? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "supported?"
My Burning Questions
When is a game "well supported"?
What does "well supported" mean to you?
What does it mean if a game is not supported?
Does it matter to you? Why?
Friday, 31 July 2015
Campaign Balancing - the 20/20 of Hindsight (Mordhiem Musings #2)
Several months ago, I did an article discussing Mordhiem-esque campaigns. This topic fits well with the recent release of Frostgrave (reviewed here) which seems to aim itself squarely at the Mordhiem demographic.
I only experimented with the mechanics and gameplay, but Calmdown and some mates over at Bad Karma has explored the campaign, and already spotted some balance issues. He is supportive of the game but he points out a few issues he has encountered in the campaign system. He has also made some suggestions to "fix" the issues encountered with houserules, so it's not a negative post - I found it interesting from a game design perspective (it echoes quite a few things I said in a post last year). There are about half a dozen points, but I feel they fit under two main headings:
The second related point is wizards are overly rewarded for "kills"/"damage"... Hmmm. I think this was also a problem in Mordhiem. I recall dual wielding was a must-have, as doing more damage always gained more XP than defence, thus levelling your character faster. If XP is tied to kills, damage-dealing spells/stats are always preferable. In Frostgrave, certain classes of wizard have better damage-dealing spells, and thus level up faster (more than double, in the test campaign) than wizards who merely buff/debuff.
Tied to this was a fourth point, which was once you lose your wizard (and thus 10 levels), you had an almost insurmountable gap to make up.
Finally, there was the ability for powerful warbands to go shopping for any specific powers and items they want - to sell off unwanted magic items etc for cash, Diablo-style, and to max out magic gear, base upgrades and for rich warbands to replace losses without blinking.
They've made a post and have some a download on how to fix the issues, and they look sensible to me. Don't go cancelling your Frostgrave order, folks!
Ok, Why R U Bashing Frostgrave?
No, I recommended it. I said it's the closest thing you'll get to Mordhiem. I also said its mechanics, while simple, aren't perfect. And it's evident its campaign isn't balanced. But is that a surprise? I suggested campaigns are naturally imbalanced - and will naturally snowball "the rich get richer" unless you take strong steps to limit it. This post is more a "how to balance a Mordhiem-esque game" rather than about Frostgrave per se.
I'm using this example as a way to reflect and expand on my previous post. The points from my old post relevant to the case are included with (*), along with extra things I learned from the Bad Karma blog.
*Advancement not be tied to winning/killing. Interestingly, it's one of the first steps the "house rules" have taken to balance Frostgrave in the example given. "Don't punish the loser" - his extra losses in men and material are punishment enough. You can learn from your defeats as well - usually more than from your victories. (At least, that's what I've noticed in coaching sport - which I do for a living)
*Campaign lengths be pre-set. This allows you to dole out a steady gain in XP/gold, at a rate where you can expect a winning warband to peak (i.e. by game 8, for example). Otherwise you might have maxxed warbands that "have it all" by game 3.... Something I didn't consider - the need for pre-set game lengths, to stop superior warbands simply picking off weaker ones at leisure then collecting all the loot. Players can play beyond that set point, but at least you've balanced it as well you could up to that point.
*Playing catch-up. A Frostgrave house-rule suggested was to allow losing warbands to scrabble around for some gold, i.e. kinda a "mercy payment." I like the idea of a NPC-style game where a warband plays against the local fauna (controlled by either dice rolls or a human opponent) matched to their level; which allows them a chance to "level up" in a fun way without competing directly against a tougher enemy warband.
I also suggested warbands who miss a game (or take a terrible loss) still get to roll for XP or advancements. At a lower rate than winning, sure, but there should still be progress. Like a bye in sport. They could be spending their free time practicing their archery/swordsmanship/spells or whatever, if you need to justify it.
*Handicap min-maxing. I was thinking along the lines of random skill rolls to prevent players getting the perfect attribute set. E.g. in the case of Frostgrave, you can pick your school of magic, but must roll and sometimes you get a random one, not the one you wanted. However this also applies to gear and replacing losses. Even the richest warband might not be able to replace a loss if no one is available. You can't always get the precise +2 flame-enchanted sword you want. They're rare magic items, after all. As the Bad Karma post pointed out, it shouldn't be like shopping at Tescos.
They house-ruled it by limiting what you can do out-of-game - you can improve your base, or recruit a soldier, or buy gear. Not everything at once. This also forces "decisions" on players in the out-of-game phase. A rich warband can replace its losses, but misses out on buying up on magic items. I also like a hard limit on how much mini stats can be increased - 20% is max increase (given by a PC FPS MMO) at which skill and tactics can still triumph over better 'hard' stats. Past the 30% mark and the advantage of the better stats is almost impossible to consistently overcome.
I'd be interested to know how extensive the circle of playtesters were for Frostgrave - and if they were primarily like-minded individuals to the game designer, or from his club.
It also highlights that the more special rules (be it spells or abilities), the more difficult a game is to balance, and the more it heads into the realm of "rule of thumb" rather than math and %. Although properly "scientifically" playtesting a game, I reckon, is all but impossible.
By the way, if you are new to this blog or the game design series, Brent Spivey did a great article on playtesting games which is recommended reading.
TL:DR
I found the whole Bad Karma discussion about campaign balance interesting. It adds quite a bit to what I know, as well as supporting many ideas/suggestions I had previous made. (I'll refrain from saying "ha! I told you so!"... oh wait...)
Furthermore, it is an useful lesson on the pitfalls of balancing a campaign. And it shows players DO care about campaign balance, even if the designer doesn't. Chucking a bunch of cool spells and gear into an advancement section doesn't cut it if your game is going to make campaign play the centrepiece (I doubt many would play one-off pickup games of Frostgrave - the mechanics aren't that crunchy) - the campaign section needs to be planned every bit as much as the mechanics. Unbalanced campaigns might be realistic, but they are not fun.
And if you like Frostgrave, a lot of solutions and ideas came out of the posts/blogs, making it a better, more balanced campaign/contest.
I only experimented with the mechanics and gameplay, but Calmdown and some mates over at Bad Karma has explored the campaign, and already spotted some balance issues. He is supportive of the game but he points out a few issues he has encountered in the campaign system. He has also made some suggestions to "fix" the issues encountered with houserules, so it's not a negative post - I found it interesting from a game design perspective (it echoes quite a few things I said in a post last year). There are about half a dozen points, but I feel they fit under two main headings:
Kills/Deathmatch > Objectives
Due to some scenarios with no game length, once you get ahead in collecting treasure, it's preferable to switch your focus to "kill 'em all" - kill or chase your opponent off the table, and thus get all the treasures by default. The second related point is wizards are overly rewarded for "kills"/"damage"... Hmmm. I think this was also a problem in Mordhiem. I recall dual wielding was a must-have, as doing more damage always gained more XP than defence, thus levelling your character faster. If XP is tied to kills, damage-dealing spells/stats are always preferable. In Frostgrave, certain classes of wizard have better damage-dealing spells, and thus level up faster (more than double, in the test campaign) than wizards who merely buff/debuff.
Warband Balance ("Snowballing")
The article highlighted how easy it was for one Frostgrave warband to quickly "snowball" in power and pull ahead of opponents - i.e. noticeable in game 2, and by the end of game 3, there was four wizards at level 12, 12, 6 and 0 respectively - quite a large power gap between the haves and have nots. Tied to this was a fourth point, which was once you lose your wizard (and thus 10 levels), you had an almost insurmountable gap to make up.
Finally, there was the ability for powerful warbands to go shopping for any specific powers and items they want - to sell off unwanted magic items etc for cash, Diablo-style, and to max out magic gear, base upgrades and for rich warbands to replace losses without blinking.
They've made a post and have some a download on how to fix the issues, and they look sensible to me. Don't go cancelling your Frostgrave order, folks!
Ok, Why R U Bashing Frostgrave?
No, I recommended it. I said it's the closest thing you'll get to Mordhiem. I also said its mechanics, while simple, aren't perfect. And it's evident its campaign isn't balanced. But is that a surprise? I suggested campaigns are naturally imbalanced - and will naturally snowball "the rich get richer" unless you take strong steps to limit it. This post is more a "how to balance a Mordhiem-esque game" rather than about Frostgrave per se.
I'm using this example as a way to reflect and expand on my previous post. The points from my old post relevant to the case are included with (*), along with extra things I learned from the Bad Karma blog.
*Advancement not be tied to winning/killing. Interestingly, it's one of the first steps the "house rules" have taken to balance Frostgrave in the example given. "Don't punish the loser" - his extra losses in men and material are punishment enough. You can learn from your defeats as well - usually more than from your victories. (At least, that's what I've noticed in coaching sport - which I do for a living)
*Campaign lengths be pre-set. This allows you to dole out a steady gain in XP/gold, at a rate where you can expect a winning warband to peak (i.e. by game 8, for example). Otherwise you might have maxxed warbands that "have it all" by game 3.... Something I didn't consider - the need for pre-set game lengths, to stop superior warbands simply picking off weaker ones at leisure then collecting all the loot. Players can play beyond that set point, but at least you've balanced it as well you could up to that point.
*Playing catch-up. A Frostgrave house-rule suggested was to allow losing warbands to scrabble around for some gold, i.e. kinda a "mercy payment." I like the idea of a NPC-style game where a warband plays against the local fauna (controlled by either dice rolls or a human opponent) matched to their level; which allows them a chance to "level up" in a fun way without competing directly against a tougher enemy warband.
I also suggested warbands who miss a game (or take a terrible loss) still get to roll for XP or advancements. At a lower rate than winning, sure, but there should still be progress. Like a bye in sport. They could be spending their free time practicing their archery/swordsmanship/spells or whatever, if you need to justify it.
*Handicap min-maxing. I was thinking along the lines of random skill rolls to prevent players getting the perfect attribute set. E.g. in the case of Frostgrave, you can pick your school of magic, but must roll and sometimes you get a random one, not the one you wanted. However this also applies to gear and replacing losses. Even the richest warband might not be able to replace a loss if no one is available. You can't always get the precise +2 flame-enchanted sword you want. They're rare magic items, after all. As the Bad Karma post pointed out, it shouldn't be like shopping at Tescos.
They house-ruled it by limiting what you can do out-of-game - you can improve your base, or recruit a soldier, or buy gear. Not everything at once. This also forces "decisions" on players in the out-of-game phase. A rich warband can replace its losses, but misses out on buying up on magic items. I also like a hard limit on how much mini stats can be increased - 20% is max increase (given by a PC FPS MMO) at which skill and tactics can still triumph over better 'hard' stats. Past the 30% mark and the advantage of the better stats is almost impossible to consistently overcome.
Playtesting
I've since discovered that Frostgrave is the product of one of the guys over at the LAF. Now that (sterotypical and narrow minded as it makes me appear) brings to mind a certain style of player - more interested in narrative, cool paintjobs, and open ended, imaginative games and whacky charm than game balance or competitive rules - just like TMP brings to mind anal retentive, angry/arrogant old men who like historical games - and Dakka Dakka brings to mind 40K addicts who flirt with other points-based competitive games, and include their win/loss ratios on their forum signatures.I'd be interested to know how extensive the circle of playtesters were for Frostgrave - and if they were primarily like-minded individuals to the game designer, or from his club.
It also highlights that the more special rules (be it spells or abilities), the more difficult a game is to balance, and the more it heads into the realm of "rule of thumb" rather than math and %. Although properly "scientifically" playtesting a game, I reckon, is all but impossible.
By the way, if you are new to this blog or the game design series, Brent Spivey did a great article on playtesting games which is recommended reading.
TL:DR
I found the whole Bad Karma discussion about campaign balance interesting. It adds quite a bit to what I know, as well as supporting many ideas/suggestions I had previous made. (I'll refrain from saying "ha! I told you so!"... oh wait...)
Furthermore, it is an useful lesson on the pitfalls of balancing a campaign. And it shows players DO care about campaign balance, even if the designer doesn't. Chucking a bunch of cool spells and gear into an advancement section doesn't cut it if your game is going to make campaign play the centrepiece (I doubt many would play one-off pickup games of Frostgrave - the mechanics aren't that crunchy) - the campaign section needs to be planned every bit as much as the mechanics. Unbalanced campaigns might be realistic, but they are not fun.
And if you like Frostgrave, a lot of solutions and ideas came out of the posts/blogs, making it a better, more balanced campaign/contest.
Game Design #49: Musings about Activation Pools & Resource Management
Most game designers are now aware that IGOUGO doesn't cut it anymore. They (in the least) do alternating units (like Chess discovered 2000 years ago) and most are experimenting with other ways to activate troops.
I think a lot of promise lies with combining activation with resource management (another currently "new" concept), you know, like the PIPs from DBA-esque games from the 80s.
I'd like to highlight my two favourite systems I've seen recently.
Good = Robotech: Tactics
...may have had the most fiddly minis I've ever had the misfortune to assemble (basically a 1:72 Revell modelling project in 1:285 - i.e. 6mm - scale), but I did like the ideas in their activation system. Basically, it was stock alternate move, and each model got the usual move/shoot action, but you got Command Tokens (=1 per model) which you could spend any way you want. You could attempt to steal an activation, dodge or mitigate incoming fire, move extra range (afterburners) - it gave a complete new layer of resource management and activation choices, elevating a otherwise bland set of rules. And the pool of tokens (kept off table) is easy to track, adding a lot of depth to the game for very little complication/slowing of play.
Good = Lords & Servants
...this medieval game has some unusual mechanics, but I thoroughly approve of their activation system. Each player gets 3d6 of activation "tokens." You can keep up to 6 of them to use in reaction to your opponent in his turn. This adds an interesting decision right off the bat - how many points do I keep to mess with my opponent in his turn? Units then have an activation cost equal to that of the leader and a single mini i.e. a group of 5 AV2 troops + a AV2 leader would cost 4AP to move - 2 for the group and 2 for the leader. Moved individually, they would cost 12AP - using leaders is thus optional but very attractive. These rules create a lot of decisions on how to best to move leaders in order to the most economically employ 'grunts' in a way that is organic rather than "forced." Also, units may make extra activations, but at an increasing cost i.e. the 1st action might cost 1AP, the 2nd action 2AP, and the 3rd action 3AP. So there's another cost-vs-reward to factor in - do I move a second time, at an increased cost? The activation pool and the way Lords & Servants have used it create a lot of decisions for the player.
Meh = Bolt Action
Basically you have a token for each unit, and draw them randomly out of a cup to show who moves next. Basically a randomised "alternate move" that sits somewhere between card-based activation and alternate move. A bit meh. It's got the same tokens as the first two examples, but there's no "resource management" or extra decision points being introduced.
But wait....
I've been thinking about ways you could add depth to it.
1. You can "set aside" tokens next to a model to store an action (aka overwatch) to react to enemies. Ok, nothing new here. Bolt Action sort of does that already. But what about....
2. You can use these "set aside" tokens to do a group move with a group of minis who are within a certain cohesion distance. This means a group move might take a while to collect and "build up" enough tokens to move all the guys you want to, and enemies could kind of see it coming.
3. A "leader" would allow a group move without buildup. I.e. you only need one token to activate the leader, then you move as many as you want within cohesion distance. Of course, you'd then have to remove some tokens remaining in the cup equal to the extra minis you moved. This makes leaders useful, as they can spontaneously order group actions without waiting to "build up" enough tokens.
4. One unused token can be used to give a model an extra action in their next move. So you can "build up" or "store" momentum. This represents models psyching themselves up for a charge, or pausing to collect themselves. That way you could store momentum in a "lull" to spend it later in a frantic attack.
There. The tokens, which were only serving as a random activation, are now clearly a "resource" to be managed. Hmm. Might work for my homebrew medieval rules, actually.
TL:DR
Anyway, those are some samples of resource management-meets-activation, and an example of how random activation tokens like in Bolt Action could be adapted to add an element of resource management to a game.
....I've got some further thoughts on resource management but it's my 2 year old's bedtime*... another day, perhaps. (*Am I the only one who thinks Dr. Seuss was definitely on drugs back in the 60s?)
I think a lot of promise lies with combining activation with resource management (another currently "new" concept), you know, like the PIPs from DBA-esque games from the 80s.
I'd like to highlight my two favourite systems I've seen recently.
Good = Robotech: Tactics
...may have had the most fiddly minis I've ever had the misfortune to assemble (basically a 1:72 Revell modelling project in 1:285 - i.e. 6mm - scale), but I did like the ideas in their activation system. Basically, it was stock alternate move, and each model got the usual move/shoot action, but you got Command Tokens (=1 per model) which you could spend any way you want. You could attempt to steal an activation, dodge or mitigate incoming fire, move extra range (afterburners) - it gave a complete new layer of resource management and activation choices, elevating a otherwise bland set of rules. And the pool of tokens (kept off table) is easy to track, adding a lot of depth to the game for very little complication/slowing of play.
Good = Lords & Servants
...this medieval game has some unusual mechanics, but I thoroughly approve of their activation system. Each player gets 3d6 of activation "tokens." You can keep up to 6 of them to use in reaction to your opponent in his turn. This adds an interesting decision right off the bat - how many points do I keep to mess with my opponent in his turn? Units then have an activation cost equal to that of the leader and a single mini i.e. a group of 5 AV2 troops + a AV2 leader would cost 4AP to move - 2 for the group and 2 for the leader. Moved individually, they would cost 12AP - using leaders is thus optional but very attractive. These rules create a lot of decisions on how to best to move leaders in order to the most economically employ 'grunts' in a way that is organic rather than "forced." Also, units may make extra activations, but at an increasing cost i.e. the 1st action might cost 1AP, the 2nd action 2AP, and the 3rd action 3AP. So there's another cost-vs-reward to factor in - do I move a second time, at an increased cost? The activation pool and the way Lords & Servants have used it create a lot of decisions for the player.
Meh = Bolt Action
Basically you have a token for each unit, and draw them randomly out of a cup to show who moves next. Basically a randomised "alternate move" that sits somewhere between card-based activation and alternate move. A bit meh. It's got the same tokens as the first two examples, but there's no "resource management" or extra decision points being introduced.
But wait....
I've been thinking about ways you could add depth to it.
1. You can "set aside" tokens next to a model to store an action (aka overwatch) to react to enemies. Ok, nothing new here. Bolt Action sort of does that already. But what about....
2. You can use these "set aside" tokens to do a group move with a group of minis who are within a certain cohesion distance. This means a group move might take a while to collect and "build up" enough tokens to move all the guys you want to, and enemies could kind of see it coming.
3. A "leader" would allow a group move without buildup. I.e. you only need one token to activate the leader, then you move as many as you want within cohesion distance. Of course, you'd then have to remove some tokens remaining in the cup equal to the extra minis you moved. This makes leaders useful, as they can spontaneously order group actions without waiting to "build up" enough tokens.
Why Don't Actions "Carry Over?"
Most rules have a section saying "any unused actions/moves/shots etc are lost and do not carry over until next turn." But why not? Yes, you would need some way to track this. But we're already using tokens on the tabletop from the example above, so let's add:4. One unused token can be used to give a model an extra action in their next move. So you can "build up" or "store" momentum. This represents models psyching themselves up for a charge, or pausing to collect themselves. That way you could store momentum in a "lull" to spend it later in a frantic attack.
There. The tokens, which were only serving as a random activation, are now clearly a "resource" to be managed. Hmm. Might work for my homebrew medieval rules, actually.
TL:DR
Anyway, those are some samples of resource management-meets-activation, and an example of how random activation tokens like in Bolt Action could be adapted to add an element of resource management to a game.
....I've got some further thoughts on resource management but it's my 2 year old's bedtime*... another day, perhaps. (*Am I the only one who thinks Dr. Seuss was definitely on drugs back in the 60s?)
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Game Design #48: Wargames and "Setup" - a Neglected Topic?
Setup - a Necessary Evil or Gaming Opportunity?
This is an area, along with morale, that I often don't emphasize much in my reviews.
Basically, it's always the same.
1. Roll for initiative. One side gets to choose the table edge or to deploy his troops first.
2. Deploy troops 12" from your table edge
Now, sometimes the rules are a bit frisky. They have you alternate placing units.
But the closest they come to "depth" or a "metagame" is sometimes you take turns placing terrain pieces. Admittedly in some mass battle games placing your units opposite the best matchup of the enemy is the game, but that's because you're playing a game where battle lines stretch across the table and maneuver is not important. In that case you've got worse problems than setup - the game sucks anyway*. (*Napoleonics' red horse-foot-guns vs identical blue blue horse-foot-guns facing each other in two straight lines is the only genre more boring than Space Marine-on-Space-Marine 40K).
But wait! There are different starting positions in "scenarios" you say.
Ah yes. The obligatory 5 scenarios tacked hastily onto the back of the book. Let me guess, there will be an "ambush" scenario where one side starts in the middle of the board and the other can start along opposite edges of something like that. Deep, very deep.
While everyone (except Games Workshop) is finally moving away from IGOUGO and investigating different activation methods/sequences, no one has really done much to revolutionize the setup phase.
Except Too Fat Lardies, who may take a bow.
Chain of Command has a minigame which determines setup - the "Patrol Phase."
Basically sides start with 3-4 patrol markers. They take turns moving the patrol markers 12". Each patrol marker must be within 12" of another friendly marker - forming a "chain" across the table. Once a patrol marker gets within 12" of an enemy patrol marker, both are now locked in place. Once one side has all its patrol markers locked in place, this phase ends.
Now players place "Jumping Off Points" - in a triangle formed by the two closest enemy markers and one of their own. They must be placed 6"+ back from their own marker, in cover. As I feel my words are failing me, I'll include a diagram:
Players then dice to see which troops can deploy. Better troops can deploy farther from the jumping off point. You use your "orders" to bring on more units or move the ones you already have on the table.
*The setup is not "paper scissors rock" - i.e. the usual laying out units opposite enemies they best counter.
*There is less "waiting period" to engage enemies i.e. no trundling across the table for several turns before things get "interesting."
*There is uncertainty, and fog-of-war in deployment (i.e. some games you can tell who has won by the time you have placed your last unit, before the game even starts)
*The setup itself is tactical and gives many "decision points" as you manuever your markers to get the best deployment spots.
You can even see how you could fiddle with this patrol phase further to get more depth i.e. units with a scout squad get an extra Patrol Marker or can move the marker 16" or similar.
Another game that does setup quite well is Dropzone Commander. Whilst the mechanics of the game itself are rather boring, it does a great job of integrating a combined arms approach (i.e. dropships+infantry+mechs/tanks+air attack). It also has scenarios strongly integrated into its play (i.e. I feel scenarios have been considered/designed from the outset to impact playstyle, not "tacked on" later). Troops start as "directly deployed" on the table, in "readiness" - they can enter any time from indicated table edges; and "in reserve" - they must dice to see when they can enter. Admittedly this is nothing new either. But Dropzone Commander, which doesn't have a revolutionary "patrol phase" also does quite well in the setup stakes due to how it integrates its setup with its combined arms games philosophy, and its scenarios which fit with the gameplay style. In fact I think scenarios and setup are linked - besides that both are somewhat ignored topics.
The Setup - TL:DR
My argument - "setup" is a neglected area in wargames.
*In a "historical" sense you'll know that often a battle was often won by what preceded it
*In a "gaming" sense we are missing out on more tactical choices and "metagaming" potential
Setup can be more than just 'chuck your minis on the table 12" from your board edge.' or 'make sure your pike unit is placed opposite their cavalry.'
This is an area, along with morale, that I often don't emphasize much in my reviews.
Basically, it's always the same.
1. Roll for initiative. One side gets to choose the table edge or to deploy his troops first.
2. Deploy troops 12" from your table edge
Now, sometimes the rules are a bit frisky. They have you alternate placing units.
But the closest they come to "depth" or a "metagame" is sometimes you take turns placing terrain pieces. Admittedly in some mass battle games placing your units opposite the best matchup of the enemy is the game, but that's because you're playing a game where battle lines stretch across the table and maneuver is not important. In that case you've got worse problems than setup - the game sucks anyway*. (*Napoleonics' red horse-foot-guns vs identical blue blue horse-foot-guns facing each other in two straight lines is the only genre more boring than Space Marine-on-Space-Marine 40K).
But wait! There are different starting positions in "scenarios" you say.
Ah yes. The obligatory 5 scenarios tacked hastily onto the back of the book. Let me guess, there will be an "ambush" scenario where one side starts in the middle of the board and the other can start along opposite edges of something like that. Deep, very deep.
While everyone (except Games Workshop) is finally moving away from IGOUGO and investigating different activation methods/sequences, no one has really done much to revolutionize the setup phase.
Except Too Fat Lardies, who may take a bow.
Chain of Command has a minigame which determines setup - the "Patrol Phase."
Basically sides start with 3-4 patrol markers. They take turns moving the patrol markers 12". Each patrol marker must be within 12" of another friendly marker - forming a "chain" across the table. Once a patrol marker gets within 12" of an enemy patrol marker, both are now locked in place. Once one side has all its patrol markers locked in place, this phase ends.
Now players place "Jumping Off Points" - in a triangle formed by the two closest enemy markers and one of their own. They must be placed 6"+ back from their own marker, in cover. As I feel my words are failing me, I'll include a diagram:
The Patrol Markers are now 12" from enemy markers and are "locked" in position. The "grey" zones show where you can place "jumping off" or deployment points. You can see the small crosses are the German "jumping off"/deployment points "A" and "B".
Players then dice to see which troops can deploy. Better troops can deploy farther from the jumping off point. You use your "orders" to bring on more units or move the ones you already have on the table.
*The setup is not "paper scissors rock" - i.e. the usual laying out units opposite enemies they best counter.
*There is less "waiting period" to engage enemies i.e. no trundling across the table for several turns before things get "interesting."
*There is uncertainty, and fog-of-war in deployment (i.e. some games you can tell who has won by the time you have placed your last unit, before the game even starts)
*The setup itself is tactical and gives many "decision points" as you manuever your markers to get the best deployment spots.
You can even see how you could fiddle with this patrol phase further to get more depth i.e. units with a scout squad get an extra Patrol Marker or can move the marker 16" or similar.
Another game that does setup quite well is Dropzone Commander. Whilst the mechanics of the game itself are rather boring, it does a great job of integrating a combined arms approach (i.e. dropships+infantry+mechs/tanks+air attack). It also has scenarios strongly integrated into its play (i.e. I feel scenarios have been considered/designed from the outset to impact playstyle, not "tacked on" later). Troops start as "directly deployed" on the table, in "readiness" - they can enter any time from indicated table edges; and "in reserve" - they must dice to see when they can enter. Admittedly this is nothing new either. But Dropzone Commander, which doesn't have a revolutionary "patrol phase" also does quite well in the setup stakes due to how it integrates its setup with its combined arms games philosophy, and its scenarios which fit with the gameplay style. In fact I think scenarios and setup are linked - besides that both are somewhat ignored topics.
The Setup - TL:DR
My argument - "setup" is a neglected area in wargames.
*In a "historical" sense you'll know that often a battle was often won by what preceded it
*In a "gaming" sense we are missing out on more tactical choices and "metagaming" potential
Setup can be more than just 'chuck your minis on the table 12" from your board edge.' or 'make sure your pike unit is placed opposite their cavalry.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)